MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
51
LINGUISTIC AND GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS OF WRITTEN
TRANSLATION: CHALLENGES IN WORD MEANING AND SENTENCE
STRUCTURE ACROSS ENGLISH AND UZBEK
Ubaydullayeva Durdona Rahmonjon qizi
teacher
Fergana State University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15657492
Abstract:
This paper discusses the key grammatical aspects of written translation,
with a specific focus on interpreting word meanings and word combinations
between English and Uzbek. It examines the typological and structural
differences between the two languages and how they influence translation
strategies.
Keywords:
Comparative linguistics, grammatical transformation, sentence structure,
translation equivalence, personal pronouns, prepositional discrepancies.
Language systems differ by their grammatical structure and symbolic
representation. For instance, English, part of the Germanic branch within the
Indo-European family, exhibits an analytical morphological nature, whereas
Uzbek, from the Turkic branch of the Altaic family, follows an agglutinative
structure. These linguistic differences affect how words and sentences are
constructed and translated.
For example:
The
hunter
killed
the
wolf.
→
Ovchi
bo‘rini
o‘ldirdi.
- I go to school. → Men maktabga boraman.
In English, sentence meaning heavily depends on fixed word order (S–P–O),
while Uzbek allows more flexibility, typically following an S–O–P pattern.
Rearranging words in English often changes the meaning entirely, whereas in
Uzbek, such changes may still preserve meaning due to morphological markers
like the suffix -ni.
English and Uzbek grammatical systems align in some cases and differ in
others:
1. Complete grammatical equivalence – when both languages share the same
grammatical function and category.
2. Partial grammatical equivalence – when categories exist in both
languages but differ in form or usage (e.g., noun agreement).
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
52
3. Grammatical incompatibility – when there is no direct grammatical
equivalent, such as possessive markers in Uzbek (kitobim, kitobing) versus
possessive pronouns in English (my book, your book).
Additionally, English articles (a, an, the) express definiteness, while Uzbek
lacks article equivalents and instead uses context or sentence structure to
convey similar meanings.
Syntactic structures also reveal varying degrees of compatibility. Phrases
like white flag (Adjective + Noun) translate directly to oq bayroq. However,
other sentence types, such as those with impersonal or participial constructions,
require deeper syntactic adjustments. For example:
I heard the door open. → Eshik ochilganini eshitdim.
To effectively translate, several grammatical transformation techniques are
applied:
-Substitution – Replacing one grammatical element with another.
-Transposition
–
Changing the order of sentence components.
-Omission – Skipping elements unnecessary in the target language.
-Addition – Inserting elements to maintain meaning or clarity.
An example of grammatical substitution includes:
He says he will come. → U kelishini aytyapti.
He said he would come. → U kelishini aytdi.
Inversion in English, often for stylistic emphasis, requires reordering in
Uzbek while maintaining meaning and tone.
Translation may also involve exchanging singular and plural forms
depending on context:
money (singular) → деньги (plural, Russian) → pul (singular, Uzbek)
struggles (plural) → борьба (singular, Russian) → kurash (singular,
Uzbek)In conclusion, grammar is fundamental to accurate translation.
Understanding full, partial, and incompatible grammatical features helps
translators navigate challenges when rendering meaning between English and
Uzbek. This analytical approach supports higher-quality translations by
adapting syntax, morphology, and context.
References:
1. Чужакин А., Палажченко П. Мир перевода. – Москва: Валент, 1997. – 192 с.
2. Шарипов Ж. Бадиий таржималар ва таржима назарияси. – Т., 1972.
3. Швейцер А. Д. К проблеме лингвистического изучения процесса
перевода // Вопросы языкознания. 1970. – № 4. – 216 с.
4. Швейцер А. Д. Перевод и лингвистика. – Москва, 1973. – 310 с.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
53
5. Швейцер А. Д. Теория перевода. Статус, проблемы, аспекты. – М.: Наука,
1988. – 364 с.
6. Ғоппорова, Н., & Убайдуллаева, Д. (2022). Коммуникативно
прагматическое исследование средств выражения директивных речевых
актов в английском и узбекском языках. Евразийский журнал
академических исследований, 2(12), 825–827.
7. Ubaydullaeva, D. (2022). Ҳозирги замон тилшунослигида қўшма гаплар
тавсифи, таснифи ва метатили масалалари. Science and innovation, 1(B6),
560–564.
8. Ubaydullayeva, D., & Raxmonqulova, M. (2022). Tilshunoslikda ijtimoiy
yo’nalishning taraqqiyoti. Science and innovation, 1(B6), 869–873.
9. Убайдуллаева, Д. (2022). Проблемы описания, классификации и
метаталогии сложных предложений в современной лингвистике. Наука и
инновации, 1(6), 560–564
